Category: Workplace Privacy

Nova Scotia arbitrator admits audio recording over union objection

On April 17, Nova Scotia labour arbitrator Augustus Richardson admitted audio recording evidence that a union objected to even though the employer failed to give proper notice of recording.

The grievors were correctional officers discharged for behaving offensively and unprofessionally in transporting an inmate to a hospital. A hospital social worker complained of misconduct that occurred in the hospital. This led the employer to speak with the inmate, who did not provide a statement, but said something – it’s unclear what – that led the employer to download and review audio-visual recordings from the vehicle the grievors used to transport the inmate.

The vehicle had visible cameras that faced its two inmate compartments, but the union and the grievors claimed they were unaware the cameras recorded audio. The employer had issued a bulletin about the cameras that explained that they recoded audio, but didn’t have a policy or post signage. Arbitrator Richardson heard evidence, and accepted that the grievors and the union were unaware.

Arbitrator Richardson nonetheless admitted the evidence. Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Syndicat des employé professionnels de l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières v. Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and Alain Larocque 1993 CanLII 162 (SCC), [1993] 1 SCR 471, he held that declining to admit such central evidence would invite a breach of natural justice. Arbitrator Richardson also held that the employer’s access to and use of the evidence was not unreasonable, and was separate from the employer’s recording of the evidence (which the union had not grieved).

There are two points of significance in this case.

First, recording audio with video is risky because it captures private communications. Providing clear notice is important to protect against potential criminal liability (for breach of the Criminal Code wiretap prohibition), and also to avoid disputes like the one adjudicated by Arbitrator Richardson.

Second, Arbitrator Richardson’s approach to the union’s objection is to be preferred to any approach to the exclusion of evidence that does not consider and weigh the impact of exclusion on hearing fairness. He does not a say that a labour arbitrator has no jurisdiction to exclude evidence obtained in breach of privacy but, rather, says that such exclusion must be “appropriate” – i.e., not work an unfairness or bring the administration of (arbitral) justice into disrepute [my words].

Nova Scotia Government and General Employees’ Union v Department of Justice (Correctional Services), 2023 CanLII 31524 (NS LA).

Arbitrator distinguishes Hooper, gives counsel direct access to disability management file

The Ontario law governing disability management and occupational health records is in disarray, though it did not stop an Ontario arbitrator from reaching the correct outcome in a decision released in November of last year. Arbitrator Colin Johnston held that neither the Personal Health Information Act nor the Occupational Health and Safety Act precluded a hospital from providing its disability management file to its legal counsel so counsel could review it for production purposes.

Although the right outcome, Arbitrator Johnston reached it through (understandably) conservative means, distinguishing the Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital case which precluded such a disclosure and the Divisional Court decision in Hooper. Further correction is required, as I argue here.

Health Sciences North v Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2022 CanLII 106545 (ON LA).

Location awareness technology on construction job site okay, says arbitrator

On January 14th, a British Columbia labour arbitrator dismissed an allegation that an employer breached British Columbia PIPA and the terms of a collective agreement by employing location awareness technology to manage employees on its construction job sites.

The employer used phone based technology to “manage and track […] employee attendance, including administering attendance requirements and payroll, and identifying and investigating inaccurate time keeping.” It adduced evidence problems with incidents of inaccurate logging of work and other attendance problems that it had discovered “by happenstance” through supervisors who managed crews across multiple work sites.

The employer installed the technology on work phones for use on job sites. The technology gathered data about whether an employee was within a work zone (along with distance away from the zone) once every three minutes. This data could not be reviewed until 24 hours later except for a “roll call” function that supervisors could use to check on employee location at any given time.

There is a line of British Columbia location tracking jurisprudence favourable to employers marked by a leading case decided by former Commissioner Elizabeth Denham – Schindler Elevator. The Schindler case, though, involved GPS technology installed in mobile workforce vehicles, partly for safety-related purposes – not phone based technology used on a job site to improve productivity. The union also argued that Schindler should no longer be followed because it pre-dated the Supreme Court of Canada’s alcohol testing decision in Irving Pulp & Paper.

The Board disagreed, and affirmed and applied Schindler. It held:

  • the information was not sensitive;
  • the collection was “reasonably likely” to be effective in satisfying its purposes;
  • the manner of collection was reasonable, in particular because the collection of data was minimized to what was necessary (not precise location and not continuous monitoring); and
  • the employer was entitled to collect the information even though there were other means of addressing its attendance problems, and is not required to exhaust all available alternatives.

This is a helpful decision for employers. While continuing to signal an aversion to “continuous monitoring” and highlighting the need for data minimization, the decision allows for the use of location awareness technology on a job site, which I believe is a Canadian first. It was also quite clear that this employer was motivated by distrust, which unions have argued aggravates the impact of monitoring. The employer did a good job of adducing evidence to prove it had legitimate concerns, but the Board also endorsed the proposition made in Schindler that there is “nothing remarkable” about an employer checking on compliance with work rules.

Kone Inc. v International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 82, 2022 CanLII 1018 (BC LA).

GSB addresses use of surveillance footage

In a decision first released last September, the Grievance Settlement Board partly upheld a grievance that challenged the use of video surveillance footage in Ontario correctional facilities.

It has become standard to establish the purpose of workplace video surveillance as supportive of safety and security and to proscribe the use of surveillance technology as a replacement for supervision. In principle this distinction makes sense, though in practice it is unclear and has led to disputes.

In this case, the GSB affirmed the employer’s use of video footage to address misconduct discovered incidentally during a legitimate surveillance footage review that was occasioned by a security incident. Vice-Chair Anderson said:

The evidence as to why the surveillance camera was placed in the central control module was scant.  The ISPPM indicates “audio and video technology are tools to enhance safety and security”.  Sgt Essery’s evidence suggests that was the purpose for the camera in the central control module. It is clear the duties of the officers in the control module are reasonably necessary to the safety and security of inmates, staff and property in the building.  I infer the ability, if necessary, to observe central control module officers in the performance of those duties has a safety and security function.  The camera is also used to observe the hallway next to the central control module through which inmates pass, in particular when they are being escorted to or from the segregation units.  There is no dispute that this has a safety and security function.  There is no evidence that the camera was placed in the central control module for any other purposes.  I conclude its placement was done in good faith for purposes permitted by Appendix COR10.

The GSB also recognized that the employer could justify the use surveillance video to spot check compliance with a procedure because the spot check and procedure were both to uphold safety and security – the primary purpose of video surveillance. In the circumstances, however, the GSB held that the employer had not proven a sufficient need for such spot checks.

The practical lesson for employers is to be wary of vague and unbounded promises to refrain from using video surveillance. The matter is one of nuance.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Union) v Ontario (Solicitor General), 2021 CanLII 95740 (ON GSB).

Ontario electronic monitoring bill coming

We’re getting numerous questions today about Ontario’s move to implement a electronic monitoring legislation.

We have no bill yet, but the announcement says:

The policy would need to contain information on whether the employer electronically monitors its workers, and if so, a description of how and in what circumstances the employer does this. In addition, the employer would need to disclose the purpose of collecting information through electronic monitoring.

The devil is in the detail, but this seems painless enough. There is nothing to indicate the Bill will impose a limit on monitoring, which is permitted by law and entirely unregulated in Ontario right now. Notice is a good practice, employed by many already, and can help cleanse networks of personal data that does get lost and stolen and that can complicate investigations and audits.

It will be important to see how monitoring is defined, and whether it is confined to endpoint monitoring or is likely to capture all the various means by which network data is captured and analyzed. There is a trend towards endpoint monitoring by the way, now arguably a network security best practice.

Let’s hope we get a bill that’s as benign as it has first appeared.

Privacy and the pandemic

I spoke today at the Schedule 2 Employers’ Group virtual speakers series about privacy and the pandemic. It was a good chance to describe all of the ways we use information to manage the risk of workplace exposure to COVID-19. We looked closely at the major information flows – screening, location tracking, exposure notification – and I even did a little riff on defense in depth. Slides below for your viewing pleasure.

Three (literal) highlights from the IPC Ontario submission

If Ontario follows through with its commitment to enact privacy legislation, the IPC/Ontario will break from her current constraints to become a privacy regulator with global relevance. We ought to listen carefully to what she is saying about reform and build a strong sense as to how she is inclined.

On October 16th, Commissioner Kosseim filed her submission to the province. It is detailed, thoughtful and strikingly moderate. It has no talk of the concept of “fundamental human rights” that has drawn the attention of the federal commissioner. Rather, the Commissioner says that balancing privacy rights with legitimate business needs is a “virtue.”

Read the submission yourself, but here are the three parts of it that I highlighted in my own read.

First, the Commissioner says we need to reframe the role of consent and develop more principled exceptions, but consent should still be at the top of the hierarchy of the bases for processing:

Some might propose that the solution lies in a GDPR-like architecture by adopting multiple grounds for lawful processing of data, whereby consent is only one such ground on the same and equal footing as other alternative bases. However, we believe that non-governmental organizations should first be required to consider whether they can obtain meaningful consent and stand ready – if asked – to demonstrate why they cannot or should not do so before turning to permissible exceptions for processing. This approach would be more in keeping with Ontario values that promote individual autonomy and respect consumer choice. Whenever it is reasonable, appropriate, and practicable for people to decide for themselves, they should be given the opportunity to do so.

Second, the Commissioner is clearly interested in AI and its implications and clearly sees value in fostering data-driven innovation, though does not propose any solutions, calling the handling of data-driven innovation “the most challenging piece to get right in any new private sector privacy law.” Here’s my highlight on this issue:

While Purpose Specification, Consent, and Collection Limitation continue to be relevant principles, a more modern private sector privacy law would need to reconsider the weight ascribed to them relative to other principles in certain circumstances. For example, in an era of artificial intelligence and advanced data analytics, organizations must rely on enormous volumes of data, which runs directly counter to collection limitation. Data are obtained, observed, inferred, and/or created from many sources other than the individual, rendering individual consent less practicable than it once was. The very object of these advanced data processes is to discover the unknown, identify patterns and derive insights that cannot be anticipated, let alone described at the outset, making highly detailed purpose specification virtually impossible.

Finally, nobody should underestimate the significance of the potential for Ontario employers to become regulated in respect of their employees. On this issue, the Commissioner’s position is clear:

Individuals should have the ability to perform their jobs with the confidence that their employer will keep them safe, while also respecting their privacy rights. Accordingly, we recommend that any private sector privacy law in Ontario should apply to all employee personal information to fill this glaring gap in privacy protection.

IPC Comments on the Ontario Government’s Discussion Paper, IPC/Ontario, 16 October 2020.

No privacy violation to tell complainants that complaint resolved by taking “action”

On February 10th, Arbitrator Oakley dismissed a grievance that alleged a university had violated a professor’s privacy by advising students that it had taken “action” to address their complaint.

Forty-three students complained about a failure to conduct sufficient evaluation by the eighth week of the term as well as inconsistent grading. The Dean investigated and issued a written warning, both actions immediately grieved by the professor and their faculty association. The Dean then sent the following communication to the complainants:

Dear Concerned Students,

Thank you for your patience.

The complaints were reviewed with [G] and the Mount Allison Faculty Association and the University took action to ensure the issues raised were addressed. This action is the subject of a grievance under the relevant collective agreement and is scheduled for arbitration in November. Collective agreements are contracts between an employer and a union governing the relationships between unionized employees and their employer. I cannot disclose any further information until the grievance is resolved by agreement or through arbitration. Please be assured that the issues you raised have been taken seriously by the University and we thank you for raising your concerns.

The professor and faculty association grieved again, relying on provincial privacy legislation, the intrusion tort and a provision of the collective agreement that prohibited the university from disclosing information in the official file.

Arbitrator Oakley dismissed the privacy grievance. He was very careful to root the decision in the facts, stressing that the university did not imply that it had disciplined the grievor.

It is entirely appropriate for Arbitrator Oakley to be so reserved, but it ought to be said that complainants of all kinds have a strong interest in knowing how their complaints are resolved and ought not to be deprived of the basic facts pertaining to resolution, in my own view even if that includes facts about discipline imposed. Privacy is not absolute and does not preclude the meeting of valid competing interests.

Mount Allison Faculty Association v Mount Allison University, 2020 CanLII 33895 (NB LA).

Arbitrator declines to find a privacy violation for inquiry made of employee’s second employer

As the gig economy rises, work for more than one employer is becoming more common, and work across multiple employers has been common in the health care sector for some time. What, then, is an employer to do if its employee has taken sick leave but may be working for their other employer? Can the employer simply ask the other employer if the employee is at work?

There are some discipline cases in which unions have not challenged such questioning and others in which employers have asked for employee consent to make the inquiry. Last July, Arbitrator Brian Sheehan of Ontario entertained and dismissed what I believe to be the first privacy breach allegation on point, though he did so in quite a qualified manner.

The employer’s inquiry was apparently based on a mere suspicion. Mr. Sheehan explained, “For Ms. Valentin, the grievor’s relatively significant level of absenteeism, in addition to Ms. Valentin’s perception that there was a pattern of the grievor being absent from work on days before or after her scheduled days off was suspicious.”

To aggravate the situation, when the employer called the other workplace it received the information it was seeking plus some editorial – that the grievor’s “attitude stinks.”

Mr. Sheehan nonetheless declined to find a privacy breach. He said:

As to the Union’s privacy argument, factually, I do not find that claim  particularly compelling. Based on the Employer’s understanding of the facts as of September 2014, it had, in my view, a reasonable basis to investigate the grievor’s work history at Villa Leonardo.  The Union’s primary complaint was that the Employer should have initially sought to obtain the information from the grievor.  On this point, while as previously noted the grievor was fairly forthcoming with respect to her work history at Villa Leonardo, she was in fact mistaken as to her work history in relation to some of the days in question. At the same time, the Employer arguably should have followed the approach in the Province of Alberta, supra, case and sought the grievor’s consent to obtain the relevant documentation from Villa Leonardo.

At the end the day, however, the extent of the nature of the invasion of the grievor’s privacy relates to the Employer asking a third party the work history pertaining to the grievor. Seeking such information is definitively on the lower end of the spectrum of the privacy interests of an individual that warrant protection, and that interest is far removed from the surreptitious electronic surveillance that was in dispute in the cited Domain Forest Products, supra, and Ebco Metal Finishing Ltd., supra, cases. In this regard, any breach of the grievor’s privacy interest was, in my view, de minimis in nature; such that, I am not inclined to issue any sort of declaration or sanction.

This is best understood as a discouragement to employers, without an actual finding based on an application of the de minimis non curat lex principle: the law will not concern itself with trifles.

No arbitrator is bound to follow another arbitrator, but employers can take some comfort in this award. If they have a reason not to ask for consent (and are prepared to articulate it if challenged) they may decide to unilaterally seek information from another employer about whether an employee was or was not at work during a period of time. The risk of liability is low.

Toronto (City) v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, 2019 CanLII 78856 (ON LA).